Letters to the Editor: Resolution to dog crisis is plain to see
Social Protection Minister Heather Humphreys with Chair of the Dog Control Stakeholder Group John Twomey mark the start of a major advertising campaign on ‘responsible dog ownership’. Picture: Damien Eagers/Julien Behal
As a dog trainer and long-serving volunteer at rescue shelters, I find the recently launched Government’s awareness campaign reminding dog owners of their responsibilities to be a misguided opportunity to resolve the crisis of abandoned dogs.
The media slogan ‘It’s not your dog’s fault, it’s yours’ completely misses the source of the problem; increased fines, the additional €2m to support for dog pounds, and the establishment of the Dog Control Stakeholder Group are more likely to temporarily appease the anger of livestock owners rather than deliver a logical, grounded and permanent solution to any problem.
Beyond changing financial penalty limits or empowering the present agents of service delivery; namely the State’s dog pounds and charity-based rescue shelters, and dog wardens — whose powers are an incompatible hybrid of legal and charity officialdom — best would be to first acknowledge the gravity of our carefree approach to dog ownership which has always been an ‘easy to adopt, easy to abandon’ culture.
Despite endless legal reforms, armies of volunteers, and millions of euro over the years, not much has changed, and the new measures are unlikely to deliver any significant impact at the source of all problems; the pre-ownership decision-making process.
There is one driving force (market availability) and three components which enable the present disaster.
Firstly, a market demand that is primarily driven by six- to 10-year-old children demanding a dog in their home, and parents — without even basic dog care skills — all too willing to appease that demand.
Secondly, highly profitable organised crime puppy-mill operators making a fortune to serve that demand, with the costs of oversupply of socially and genetically challenged pups an inconsequential burden.
Thirdly, despite all the goodwill in the world, animal charities and rescue shelters are cleaning up the mess, to keep the marketplace clean (no feral dogs on our streets and thus no political urgency) without making any impact on the primary market force to change the culture. When an issue is outsourced to law and charity, the best that can be delivered is alleviation of a problem — not resolution.
In just a few weeks, the SPCA movement celebrates its bicentenary (June 16, 1824). Richard Martin the Galway lawyer and MP, (aka Humanity Dick) designed the society’s purpose to make horse slaughtering establishments legally responsible for a horse’s welfare BEFORE the ownership transfer. In an unfortunate twist of fate, his design was defeated in parliament on June 15, 1824, and subsequently abandoned by the London Society, which followed a church- based model; a platform dependent on financial donations and volunteers, and restricted to preaching to the converted.
In the past 200 years, all animal charities adopted this composition, which is helpful to clean up a mess, but also devoted to continuous failure. When any social issue is simultaneously outsourced to both law and charity, the best that can be delivered is alleviation.
Without an educational programme for children and prospective owner certification, similar to the founding intention of the SPCA, continuous failure is guaranteed. Under the present laws and structures, a question every dog owner, taxpayer, and the new Dog Control Stakeholder Group must ask is: “If one donates to an animal charity, is one enabling organised crime and contributing to the mess?” Perhaps a more appropriate slogan may be ‘‘It’s not your dog’s fault, it’s partly yours, but mostly the Government’s fault.’
Tánaiste Micheál Martin has made clear his intention to press ahead with legislative change to the “triple lock” mechanism that requires UN backing before Ireland deploys more than 12 military personnel abroad.
The UN element of the triple lock is to be completely abandoned. Despite protestations to the contrary, this will mean a distancing of Ireland from the peacekeeping structures of the UN. Indeed, the decision plainly undermines the role and reputation of the UN as an international peacekeeper — it will certainly be viewed as a vote of no-confidence from a country that was always strongly supportive of this international body.
There can be no doubt that the UN Security Council, in particular, has serious flaws, and deep reform of the structures of the UN is badly needed. The permanent members are a problem and the power they hold is debilitating. The most egregious example of these issues in recent times has been the repeated deployment by the US of its veto to block resolutions calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.
However, rather than insisting on such reform, the Irish Government has arguably taken advantage of a problem that has existed for many decades in order to shift this State closer to emerging EU military structures, which work in co-operation with Nato.
We are assured by Mr Martin that the ending of the existing triple lock will not affect military neutrality or this State’s anti-war foreign policy, but it is impossible not to feel that the stage is being set.
In February, journalists highlighted the existence of a new enhanced agreement between Nato and Ireland. At the time, Irish Government sources insisted, as always, that this is not a step towards full membership of the Nato military alliance. However, Ireland’s involvement with what is called the Individual Tailored Partnership Programme (ITPP) is meant to bring the Irish army and naval service into a closer operational relationship with Nato. Disappointingly, there has been very little public discussion of these important security developments.
The central objective of the ITPP is improving Irish military preparedness within a Nato framework. And it is important to remember Ireland does not have to be a full member of a military alliance in order to be within its camp. Through involvement with Partnership for Peace, and now with this new agreement, Ireland has aligned itself with Nato. Pointing to other “neutral” countries in a similar position does not change that meaning. Two wrongs do not make a right, and so on. This refined cooperation with Nato is happening as the triple lock is being pulled apart. Is this simply a coincidence?
With regard to military neutrality, it feels as if the ducks are being gradually shuffled into a row. The hawks who wish to end Ireland’s neutrality policy are certainly pleased with Mr Martin’s actions on the triple lock. Those who oppose the rise of militarism and support military neutrality should be disturbed.
Your recent report on the decline of EV sales in Ireland highlighted concerns expressed by citizens regarding electric vehicles. As an EV driver with over 300,000km of experience, I feel compelled to share a different perspective.
In my five years of driving EVs, I have never run out of charge or experienced significant difficulties with charging. I live in a rural area and extensively drive to rural and urban areas.
On the contrary, I’ve saved considerable thousands on petrol and maintenance and found charging infrastructure to be significant, and significantly improving. During my frequent return trips from south Galway to Dublin, I pass by 120 fast chargers. To make that 420km+ round trip, I need to stop at any one of the 120 fast charge points for about 10 minutes.
While it’s understandable that concerns about EVs exist, media coverage often amplifies these fears without substantiating their accuracy. Reporters could greatly benefit from researching the validity of such concerns and seeking input from individuals with firsthand experience.
I urge the media to adopt a more balanced approach to reporting on EVs, one that acknowledges the positive experiences of drivers like myself and provides accurate information to the public. By doing so, we can foster a more informed and supportive environment for the transition to electric vehicles.
